Other anonymous comments, picked up on CCTV after an incident in September 2012, included “Went down though didn’t he?”, “No he was Tasered, silly boy,” and “Ahh did you make him cry? Couldn’t happen to a nicer person.”

Blackburn MP Jack Straw, who brought in the use of Tasers as Secretary of State for Justice in 2008, said Tasers were much safer than batons or pepper spray.

He said: "I agree Tasers have got to be used properly but I think everybody needs to bear in mind the job the police do."

And Burnley MP Gordon Birtwistle said anyone using a Taser had to be 'properly trained'.

The IPCC said Insp Smith ‘made no attempt to actively check that the post-incident procedure was completed’.

Alex Hall, the IPCC’s lead investigator, said: “Inspector Smith has not recorded his rationale for this decision, nor the later refusal, in any written manner. No rationale is discussed or recorded anywhere. This is not in line with the force policy.”

The IPCC investigations looked at complaints made following the use of a Taser on two different men in Burnley’s Parker Lane custody suite on July 29 and 15 September, 2012.

In both instances, Lancashire police said the men presented a risk of violence to officers while attempts were made to carry out strip searches.

In the July incident, a man had been arrested on suspicion of a racially aggravated assault and launched into a drunken racist tirade at the police station before refusing a strip search.

He was Tasered by an authorised officer after threatening to fight anyone who tried to remove his underwear.

The IPCC recommended further training for Sgt Jonathan Lobb after he admitted he ‘did not feel sufficiently prepared to go into custody’.

In the September incident, officers had arrested a drunk man on suspicion of numerous driving offences. While searching him they found a blade and he refused a strip search after officers suspected he may have been concealing other items. He was Tasered after officers described him becoming ‘extremely volatile’.

Guidelines for using the 50,000 volt Tasers state that officers may use the weapon ‘when faced with violence or threats of violence of such severity that force is needed to protect the public, themselves or the individual concerned’.

Rachel Baines, chair of the Lancashire Police Federation, said there were ‘always lessons to be learned’ where Tasers were involved.

She said: “The public still find it odd. We are under a lot of scrutiny, but it’s worth remembering that it is a less lethal option than using a baton and causes less injuries to people.

“We are pleased with the IPCC findings which say the uses were justified.”

James Dipple-Johnstone, the IPCC commissioner for Lancashire, said: “The IPCC has a number of concerns about the use of Taser, including when it is used in confined spaces like police cells, where we believe it should only be used in exceptional circumstances. “Although our investigations found that in both instances use of Taser could be justified, there are areas for Lancashire Constabulary to address.”

Lancashire police declined to comment when asked if Insp Smith had been suspended.

A spokesman said: “The IPCC found that the use of Taser in both of these incidents could be justified in the circumstances.

“We note the recommendations in the report and have already addressed the issues raised.”

Blind man Colin Farmer, 64, who was Tasered in 2012 by officers in Chorley who mistook his white stick for a samurai sword, said: "Using Tasers in a prison cell is terrible. It is barbaric."

Comments (19)

A misconduct hearing! 2012 this happened. 2 Years to come to light,fast action by the police ( as usual ). Why waste money on the hearing, we all know the outcome. Slap on the wrist, keeps his job and probably promoted.Cant say to much might get a visit, but no respect for our force at all.

A misconduct hearing! 2012 this happened. 2 Years to come to light,fast action by the police ( as usual ). Why waste money on the hearing, we all know the outcome. Slap on the wrist, keeps his job and probably promoted.Cant say to much might get a visit, but no respect for our force at all.gazp64

How ironic. The Police are villified for zapping a couple of violent scroats, one of whiom had a bladed instrument, yet the Fire Brigade are praised when they zap somebody. Its a no win situation! Ha!!

How ironic. The Police are villified for zapping a couple of violent scroats, one of whiom had a bladed instrument, yet the Fire Brigade are praised when they zap somebody. Its a no win situation! Ha!!HelmshoreBoy

gazp64 wrote:
A misconduct hearing! 2012 this happened. 2 Years to come to light,fast action by the police ( as usual ). Why waste money on the hearing, we all know the outcome. Slap on the wrist, keeps his job and probably promoted.Cant say to much might get a visit, but no respect for our force at all.

Firstly the police didn't bring this action, the IPCC did. The clue is in the title INDEPENDENT police complaints commission.

This inspector simply failed to follow a standard administration procedure following authorising the carriage of taser which was subsequently deployed. Do you really think he should lose his job for not filling in a bit of paperwork??

[quote][p][bold]gazp64[/bold] wrote:
A misconduct hearing! 2012 this happened. 2 Years to come to light,fast action by the police ( as usual ). Why waste money on the hearing, we all know the outcome. Slap on the wrist, keeps his job and probably promoted.Cant say to much might get a visit, but no respect for our force at all.[/p][/quote]Firstly the police didn't bring this action, the IPCC did. The clue is in the title INDEPENDENT police complaints commission.
This inspector simply failed to follow a standard administration procedure following authorising the carriage of taser which was subsequently deployed. Do you really think he should lose his job for not filling in a bit of paperwork??Steven Seagull

gazp64 wrote:
A misconduct hearing! 2012 this happened. 2 Years to come to light,fast action by the police ( as usual ). Why waste money on the hearing, we all know the outcome. Slap on the wrist, keeps his job and probably promoted.Cant say to much might get a visit, but no respect for our force at all.

Firstly the police didn't bring this action, the IPCC did. The clue is in the title INDEPENDENT police complaints commission.

This inspector simply failed to follow a standard administration procedure following authorising the carriage of taser which was subsequently deployed. Do you really think he should lose his job for not filling in a bit of paperwork??

Not filling in paperwork! I wonder why? Maybe the answer is in the cctv footage. Dont you think?

[quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]gazp64[/bold] wrote:
A misconduct hearing! 2012 this happened. 2 Years to come to light,fast action by the police ( as usual ). Why waste money on the hearing, we all know the outcome. Slap on the wrist, keeps his job and probably promoted.Cant say to much might get a visit, but no respect for our force at all.[/p][/quote]Firstly the police didn't bring this action, the IPCC did. The clue is in the title INDEPENDENT police complaints commission.
This inspector simply failed to follow a standard administration procedure following authorising the carriage of taser which was subsequently deployed. Do you really think he should lose his job for not filling in a bit of paperwork??[/p][/quote]Not filling in paperwork! I wonder why? Maybe the answer is in the cctv footage. Dont you think?gazp64

gazp64 wrote:
A misconduct hearing! 2012 this happened. 2 Years to come to light,fast action by the police ( as usual ). Why waste money on the hearing, we all know the outcome. Slap on the wrist, keeps his job and probably promoted.Cant say to much might get a visit, but no respect for our force at all.

Firstly the police didn't bring this action, the IPCC did. The clue is in the title INDEPENDENT police complaints commission.

This inspector simply failed to follow a standard administration procedure following authorising the carriage of taser which was subsequently deployed. Do you really think he should lose his job for not filling in a bit of paperwork??

Not filling in paperwork! I wonder why? Maybe the answer is in the cctv footage. Dont you think?

How does the CCTV footage help your argument when the answer in the CCTV is that its investigation concluded that two uses of a Taser at Burnley police station in 2012 were ‘justifiable and proportionate’ because the men presented a risk of violence to officers?

[quote][p][bold]gazp64[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]gazp64[/bold] wrote:
A misconduct hearing! 2012 this happened. 2 Years to come to light,fast action by the police ( as usual ). Why waste money on the hearing, we all know the outcome. Slap on the wrist, keeps his job and probably promoted.Cant say to much might get a visit, but no respect for our force at all.[/p][/quote]Firstly the police didn't bring this action, the IPCC did. The clue is in the title INDEPENDENT police complaints commission.
This inspector simply failed to follow a standard administration procedure following authorising the carriage of taser which was subsequently deployed. Do you really think he should lose his job for not filling in a bit of paperwork??[/p][/quote]Not filling in paperwork! I wonder why? Maybe the answer is in the cctv footage. Dont you think?[/p][/quote]How does the CCTV footage help your argument when the answer in the CCTV is that its investigation concluded that two uses of a Taser at Burnley police station in 2012 were ‘justifiable and proportionate’ because the men presented a risk of violence to officers?doylerf

PK Bailey wrote:
In danger no prob that's what they are there for,After all why should they put themselves in a dangerous position with a violent drunk!

lets face it not many of us would want to be a copper and have to put up with drunks and druggies not to mention criminals of the highest order,,they can,t do right for doing wrong ,,it,s a thankless task and l for one would not do their job,,good luck to the coppers of today its not exactly Dickson of Dock green stuff is it ? if it was there would be respect like there was back in the 50s,society has nose dived when it comes to common decency,

[quote][p][bold]PK Bailey[/bold] wrote:
In danger no prob that's what they are there for,After all why should they put themselves in a dangerous position with a violent drunk![/p][/quote]lets face it not many of us would want to be a copper and have to put up with drunks and druggies not to mention criminals of the highest order,,they can,t do right for doing wrong ,,it,s a thankless task and l for one would not do their job,,good luck to the coppers of today its not exactly Dickson of Dock green stuff is it ? if it was there would be respect like there was back in the 50s,society has nose dived when it comes to common decency,noddy57

gazp64 wrote:
A misconduct hearing! 2012 this happened. 2 Years to come to light,fast action by the police ( as usual ). Why waste money on the hearing, we all know the outcome. Slap on the wrist, keeps his job and probably promoted.Cant say to much might get a visit, but no respect for our force at all.

Firstly the police didn't bring this action, the IPCC did. The clue is in the title INDEPENDENT police complaints commission.

This inspector simply failed to follow a standard administration procedure following authorising the carriage of taser which was subsequently deployed. Do you really think he should lose his job for not filling in a bit of paperwork??

Not filling in paperwork! I wonder why? Maybe the answer is in the cctv footage. Dont you think?

If you're able to, please explain what you mean?

It's already been established by an independent enquiry that the officer who discharged his taser acted lawfully. So what else in the footage gives occasion to raise any further questions?

[quote][p][bold]gazp64[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]gazp64[/bold] wrote:
A misconduct hearing! 2012 this happened. 2 Years to come to light,fast action by the police ( as usual ). Why waste money on the hearing, we all know the outcome. Slap on the wrist, keeps his job and probably promoted.Cant say to much might get a visit, but no respect for our force at all.[/p][/quote]Firstly the police didn't bring this action, the IPCC did. The clue is in the title INDEPENDENT police complaints commission.
This inspector simply failed to follow a standard administration procedure following authorising the carriage of taser which was subsequently deployed. Do you really think he should lose his job for not filling in a bit of paperwork??[/p][/quote]Not filling in paperwork! I wonder why? Maybe the answer is in the cctv footage. Dont you think?[/p][/quote]If you're able to, please explain what you mean?
It's already been established by an independent enquiry that the officer who discharged his taser acted lawfully. So what else in the footage gives occasion to raise any further questions?Steven Seagull

I bet if the correct paperwork was filled in , there would be no hearing ,,, so the. Tazering. Was lawfull ,,, so I don't see a problem with it ,,, ,, not to fill in paperwork in case there's a libel case ,, that's all the goverment is interested in ,,,, paper work paperwork , no wonder there's no law and order ,, because the time is spent in a office fighting burecratic paperwork ,,

I bet if the correct paperwork was filled in , there would be no hearing ,,, so the. Tazering. Was lawfull ,,, so I don't see a problem with it ,,, ,, not to fill in paperwork in case there's a libel case ,, that's all the goverment is interested in ,,,, paper work paperwork , no wonder there's no law and order ,, because the time is spent in a office fighting burecratic paperwork ,,phil kernot

Rich Riley wrote:
Officer Seagull, do you have any opinion on the comments that were picked up on CCTV? Are they comments of decent professionals?

Why do I have to be a copper because of my personal view point?

And I think the comments captured were wholly unprofessional and especially considering that the officers were probably abundantly aware that the area was covered by CCTV and audio.

But conversely should we be too concerned about police officers "hurting the feelings" of such low level pieces of sh1t??? If you think we should then you seriously need to have a word with yourself.

[quote][p][bold]Rich Riley[/bold] wrote:
Officer Seagull, do you have any opinion on the comments that were picked up on CCTV? Are they comments of decent professionals?[/p][/quote]Why do I have to be a copper because of my personal view point?
And I think the comments captured were wholly unprofessional and especially considering that the officers were probably abundantly aware that the area was covered by CCTV and audio.
But conversely should we be too concerned about police officers "hurting the feelings" of such low level pieces of sh1t??? If you think we should then you seriously need to have a word with yourself.Steven Seagull

If the IPCC searched the legth and bredth of the country do they think they would find one taxpayer who thought this investigation was worth spending any money one? An Inspector doesn't fill in a form and some officers or gaolers make a few glib comments. Who cares? What about the prisoners threatening them and shouting racist abuse? The world really really really really has gone mad. Well done Insp Smith and well done taser officers - you have got my support.

If the IPCC searched the legth and bredth of the country do they think they would find one taxpayer who thought this investigation was worth spending any money one? An Inspector doesn't fill in a form and some officers or gaolers make a few glib comments. Who cares? What about the prisoners threatening them and shouting racist abuse? The world really really really really has gone mad. Well done Insp Smith and well done taser officers - you have got my support.Paul The Octopus Lives!

A lot of keyboard warriors commenting tonight. Seeing one picture, putting 2 and 2 together and winning the f ing lottery. The people named are doing a difficult job under extreme pressure and yet everyone else involved remains nameless. Doesn't quite seem right that to me.

A lot of keyboard warriors commenting tonight. Seeing one picture, putting 2 and 2 together and winning the f ing lottery. The people named are doing a difficult job under extreme pressure and yet everyone else involved remains nameless. Doesn't quite seem right that to me.Big Peter

""two uses of a Taser at Burnley police station in 2012 were ‘justifiable and proportionate’ because the men presented a risk of violence to officers.""

The use of the tazer was justified because the criminal needed restraining and placing in a cell....oh, wait a minute, the guy was already in a cell?

Shut the door, walk away, no need to use a tazer whether deserved or not!

""two uses of a Taser at Burnley police station in 2012 were ‘justifiable and proportionate’ because the men presented a risk of violence to officers.""
The use of the tazer was justified because the criminal needed restraining and placing in a cell....oh, wait a minute, the guy was already in a cell?
Shut the door, walk away, no need to use a tazer whether deserved or not!Rumpole

Rumpole wrote:
&quot;"two uses of a Taser at Burnley police station in 2012 were ‘justifiable and proportionate’ because the men presented a risk of violence to officers.""

The use of the tazer was justified because the criminal needed restraining and placing in a cell....oh, wait a minute, the guy was already in a cell?

Shut the door, walk away, no need to use a tazer whether deserved or not!

Exactly what I thought.. Close the door, walk away, make both yourself and him, a cup of tea and everyone, calm down. I thought that the Police were trained to handle these crisis situations, in a certain manner.
If it had been me, (and I've done duty in a military custody facility, where firearms aren't allowed), I'd have told him, in no uncertain terms, that he was behaving like a child and that I wasn't going to talk to him until he acted like the adult he was supposed to be. (It's not called the cooler, for nothing.) Just leave them to stew, go make a brew for two, then ask what all the fuss is about.
People, no matter how mentally deranged at the time, have a remarkable ability to become calmed, if you offer no threats, show a little kindness and a sympathetic ear.
Of course, if you feel the need to wear full body armour, carry shields, batons or tasers, to enforce your authority on a prisoner, in a confined space like a cell, you might find that they might spill more than just the tea!

[quote][p][bold]Rumpole[/bold] wrote:
""two uses of a Taser at Burnley police station in 2012 were ‘justifiable and proportionate’ because the men presented a risk of violence to officers.""
The use of the tazer was justified because the criminal needed restraining and placing in a cell....oh, wait a minute, the guy was already in a cell?
Shut the door, walk away, no need to use a tazer whether deserved or not![/p][/quote]Exactly what I thought.. Close the door, walk away, make both yourself and him, a cup of tea and everyone, calm down. I thought that the Police were trained to handle these crisis situations, in a certain manner.
If it had been me, (and I've done duty in a military custody facility, where firearms aren't allowed), I'd have told him, in no uncertain terms, that he was behaving like a child and that I wasn't going to talk to him until he acted like the adult he was supposed to be. (It's not called the cooler, for nothing.) Just leave them to stew, go make a brew for two, then ask what all the fuss is about.
People, no matter how mentally deranged at the time, have a remarkable ability to become calmed, if you offer no threats, show a little kindness and a sympathetic ear.
Of course, if you feel the need to wear full body armour, carry shields, batons or tasers, to enforce your authority on a prisoner, in a confined space like a cell, you might find that they might spill more than just the tea!woolywords

Rumpole wrote:
&quot;"two uses of a Taser at Burnley police station in 2012 were ‘justifiable and proportionate’ because the men presented a risk of violence to officers.""

The use of the tazer was justified because the criminal needed restraining and placing in a cell....oh, wait a minute, the guy was already in a cell?

Shut the door, walk away, no need to use a tazer whether deserved or not!

Did you actually read the article? Did you miss the part where it said one of them had a blade on him? Would it be therefore safe to just leave him in a cell on his own having not searched him thoroughly?
Imagine if he had have been left in the cell and he subsequently self harmed with an.item he had concealed, you'd be on here sl@going the police off wouldn't you?

They can't win whatever they do.

[quote][p][bold]Rumpole[/bold] wrote:
""two uses of a Taser at Burnley police station in 2012 were ‘justifiable and proportionate’ because the men presented a risk of violence to officers.""
The use of the tazer was justified because the criminal needed restraining and placing in a cell....oh, wait a minute, the guy was already in a cell?
Shut the door, walk away, no need to use a tazer whether deserved or not![/p][/quote]Did you actually read the article? Did you miss the part where it said one of them had a blade on him? Would it be therefore safe to just leave him in a cell on his own having not searched him thoroughly?
Imagine if he had have been left in the cell and he subsequently self harmed with an.item he had concealed, you'd be on here sl@going the police off wouldn't you?
They can't win whatever they do.Steven Seagull

Rumpole wrote:
&quot;"two uses of a Taser at Burnley police station in 2012 were ‘justifiable and proportionate’ because the men presented a risk of violence to officers.""

The use of the tazer was justified because the criminal needed restraining and placing in a cell....oh, wait a minute, the guy was already in a cell?

Shut the door, walk away, no need to use a tazer whether deserved or not!

Exactly what I thought.. Close the door, walk away, make both yourself and him, a cup of tea and everyone, calm down. I thought that the Police were trained to handle these crisis situations, in a certain manner.
If it had been me, (and I've done duty in a military custody facility, where firearms aren't allowed), I'd have told him, in no uncertain terms, that he was behaving like a child and that I wasn't going to talk to him until he acted like the adult he was supposed to be. (It's not called the cooler, for nothing.) Just leave them to stew, go make a brew for two, then ask what all the fuss is about.
People, no matter how mentally deranged at the time, have a remarkable ability to become calmed, if you offer no threats, show a little kindness and a sympathetic ear.
Of course, if you feel the need to wear full body armour, carry shields, batons or tasers, to enforce your authority on a prisoner, in a confined space like a cell, you might find that they might spill more than just the tea!

Hmmmmm, you haven't thought that one through have you Mr army drill sergeant. Give a violent prisoner who is threatening violence are hot cup of tea to throw straight in your face, yeah, that'll help.

Next thing you'll be wanting to send these ne'er-do-wells for counselling and weekends away.

People (like you) seem to think that once somebody is brought into custody the go in a cell and behave themselves and that's it. Wrong. People who have tried to self harm in the past have to be searched before going in a cell. People who have previously been caught with drugs have to be searched before going in a cell. In short, anybody brought into police custody has to be searched before being put in a cell for their safety and the safety of staff that have a duty of care towards them.

If somebody is refusing to be searched and offering violence what are you supposed to do? Crack open the PG tips and scones?
You might have had the time to sit and negotiate with these people but the cops don't.

If using a taser on a violent prisoner stops a police office getting injured them just exactly what is the problem with that?

I honestly don't know what is wrong with some people nowadays, they don't seem to realise that not all violent encounters can be dealt with by dishing our tea and sympathy (literally).

[quote][p][bold]woolywords[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Rumpole[/bold] wrote:
""two uses of a Taser at Burnley police station in 2012 were ‘justifiable and proportionate’ because the men presented a risk of violence to officers.""
The use of the tazer was justified because the criminal needed restraining and placing in a cell....oh, wait a minute, the guy was already in a cell?
Shut the door, walk away, no need to use a tazer whether deserved or not![/p][/quote]Exactly what I thought.. Close the door, walk away, make both yourself and him, a cup of tea and everyone, calm down. I thought that the Police were trained to handle these crisis situations, in a certain manner.
If it had been me, (and I've done duty in a military custody facility, where firearms aren't allowed), I'd have told him, in no uncertain terms, that he was behaving like a child and that I wasn't going to talk to him until he acted like the adult he was supposed to be. (It's not called the cooler, for nothing.) Just leave them to stew, go make a brew for two, then ask what all the fuss is about.
People, no matter how mentally deranged at the time, have a remarkable ability to become calmed, if you offer no threats, show a little kindness and a sympathetic ear.
Of course, if you feel the need to wear full body armour, carry shields, batons or tasers, to enforce your authority on a prisoner, in a confined space like a cell, you might find that they might spill more than just the tea![/p][/quote]Hmmmmm, you haven't thought that one through have you Mr army drill sergeant. Give a violent prisoner who is threatening violence are hot cup of tea to throw straight in your face, yeah, that'll help.
Next thing you'll be wanting to send these ne'er-do-wells for counselling and weekends away.
People (like you) seem to think that once somebody is brought into custody the go in a cell and behave themselves and that's it. Wrong. People who have tried to self harm in the past have to be searched before going in a cell. People who have previously been caught with drugs have to be searched before going in a cell. In short, anybody brought into police custody has to be searched before being put in a cell for their safety and the safety of staff that have a duty of care towards them.
If somebody is refusing to be searched and offering violence what are you supposed to do? Crack open the PG tips and scones?
You might have had the time to sit and negotiate with these people but the cops don't.
If using a taser on a violent prisoner stops a police office getting injured them just exactly what is the problem with that?
I honestly don't know what is wrong with some people nowadays, they don't seem to realise that not all violent encounters can be dealt with by dishing our tea and sympathy (literally).Steven Seagull

Yet again corrupt police are getting off without prosecution. When is our incompetent Police Commissioner going to take effective action against these bunch of thugs which are a disgrace to policing

Yet again corrupt police are getting off without prosecution. When is our incompetent Police Commissioner going to take effective action against these bunch of thugs which are a disgrace to policingpsch